The Questions U.F.O. skeptics can't answer

Originally posted by bringthelight
Credible witness testimony can send a person to jail for life but is ignored when it comes to the most important discovery of our time?

This notion pops up every once in a while here. First, I wouldn't say that UFO witness testimony is ignored. It's listened to as much as possible,
and generally accepted as accurate up to the point where the very existence of what they're talking about is in question. See, there's a huge
difference between witness testimony in Court (where people are talking about activities that we know exist), and witness statements where the very
existence of what they're describing is debatable.

If somebody tells me they've seen a flying saucer zipping around in a way unlike any aircraft they've ever seen, I don't have any reason to doubt
that. Maybe they really believe they saw something. Maybe they even did. But how would I know, without being there? Giving them the benefit of the
doubt, okay. But if this same person tells me they knew it was from Zeta Recticuli or someplace like that, then they're going to have to start
coming up with a little better evidence of that than just their word, because as far as I know, that whole alien question is still up for grabs. They
need to show me a local map of Zeta Reticuli printed on a material not made on Earth. Or something like that. I just can't automatically accept
their word on that.

And that goes with anything that's existence is questionable. Somebody says they saw a leprechaun. Fine. Maybe they honestly think they saw it.
But since the existence of leprechauns is not exactly proven, would you instantly accept that this person actually saw one of the wee people? Would
that be accepted in a Court of law? Doubtful. You'd at least want to see a pot of gold, or maybe a little leprechaun body first.

Yeah, people see weird stuff. But why should I just take their interpretation of what it was as a fact? A flying saucer could be aliens. It could
also be a time probe from the future. Or a tulpa fashioned from morphic resonance fields. Or something completely else. If you've got good,
positive evidence of it being one of these things, great! We'd all like to take a look at it.

Until then, though, it's going to have to be, "You saw a flying saucer? Lucky you. You get a cookie."

Read what I said AGAIN..I said SOME CAN BE MISTAKEN OR DELUSIONAL...which means not all and I was speaking of witnesses to these events. And when I
used the presidents as an example I was simply stating that high ranking officials can and do lie, I never said they are delusional. Hope you got it
because unless you need to be slapped upside the head for it to sink in...jks.

If you review the post where I mentioned I dedicated my life to abductees you will see that I already included myself as one. I will never deny what
happened to me and on a few particular encounters I can recall and remember most of everything. It doesn’t make me extremely special there are
others who have remembered as well. We currently have 3 web-sites dedicated to this and keep daily contact with a world wide abductee community. You
would be surprised how many abduction cases take place around the globe. I feel as if you have only watch a few you tube videos on ufo's and then
simply decided they do not exist. My guess is you are not very familiar and/or knowledgeable when it comes to sightings, abduction cases and ET
evidence.

It's easy for someone to sit back and say it's a myth, it's a myth, prove it, your insane, seek medical help and try debunking every picture,
testimony and video ever produced. Anyone can do that, do you believe that the country China exists? Have you ever been there or do you believe the
people who have told you it exists or perhaps the television you watch? We have thousands of first hand contact cases reported, is every single person
out there delusional and strangely experiencing the same things? Please don't be so blind, do a little more research on it.

This guy doesn't seem to be playing with a full deck...lol. The others understood what we are saying, he doesn't understand because we are not
saying stuff like aliens exist or all hail the alien overlords..lol

Originally posted by polomontana
There's both direct and circumstantial evidence to support things within ufology.

Direct evidence is testimony or other proof which expressly or straight-forwardly proves the existence of a fact. It is different from circumstantial
evidence, which is evidence that, without going directly to prove the existence of a fact, gives rise to a logical inference that such fact does
exist.

Direct evidence is evidence which, if believed, proves the existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption. It is evidence which comes
from one who speaks directly of his or her own knowledge on the main or ultimate fact to be proved, or who saw or heard the factual matters which are
the subject of the testimony. It is not necessary that this direct knowledge be gained through the senses of sight and hearing alone, but it may be
obtained from any of the senses through which outside knowledge is acquired, including the senses of touch or pain.

Circumstantial evidence is a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown.
Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. Corroboration is normally supplied by one
or more expert witnesses who provide forensic evidence.

Nice follow-up, polomontana......yes, if used wisely and skillfully, direct and circumstantial evidence in COMBINATION can benefit the UFOlogy
community greatly. Although I did choose to avoid wikipedia's definition and sought a more thorough explanation of both....what you posted is to the
point. Good job.....please avoid wasting time on skeptics that choose to extend their arguments for no obvious reason. This will waste your time and
energy. Pick your spots, make your points, and when they counter with the same old lines/arguments, move on. Look for those with an open
mind...eventually you'll find that open-minded skeptics can help you and vice-versa. Believers do need open-minded skeptics and vice-versa to be
balanced in the approach to furthering the study of ufology. Also, close-minded believers should be avoided as well.....

Believing China exists and ufo's do are two different things...lol. China exist because I have met chinese and spoke with them. Abductions can be
duplicated in a lab...so yeah they have proven that aliens can be conjured up in the brain. Before the grays though....there was venus dudes taking
you guys and other aliens having sex with abductees before them and before that witches taking souls but now thier gone and have been replaced with
alien abductions. So I consider alien abductions to be a new fad.

What are you then.. an open minded believer. Without ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE are you willing to say that there is a chance that these things do not exist or
you have decided they do and are unwilling to give anything else a chance.
Because that is just as close minded as some skeptics. I am not close minded I am willing to hear the theory that aliens come here...I just don;t
believe they are because nothing proves it yet.
[edit on 27-7-2008 by riggs2099]

........Anyone can do that, do you believe that the country China exists? Have you ever been there or do you believe the people who have told you it
exists or perhaps the television you watch? We have thousands of first hand contact cases reported, is every single person out there delusional and
strangely experiencing the same things? Please don't be so blind, do a little more research on it.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by Malevolent_Aliens]

That's not a valid comparison. The country China can be seen, heard, and smelled. It exist. We all know that.

In contrary, where can I see an alien? Where can I touch an e.t. spacefcraft?

Nowhere. This whole E.T point is moot. It's like trying to prove the existence of God.

Originally posted by polomontana
There's both direct and circumstantial evidence to support things within ufology.

Direct evidence is testimony or other proof which expressly or straight-forwardly proves the existence of a fact. It is different from circumstantial
evidence, which is evidence that, without going directly to prove the existence of a fact, gives rise to a logical inference that such fact does
exist.

Direct evidence is evidence which, if believed, proves the existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption. It is evidence which comes
from one who speaks directly of his or her own knowledge on the main or ultimate fact to be proved, or who saw or heard the factual matters which are
the subject of the testimony. It is not necessary that this direct knowledge be gained through the senses of sight and hearing alone, but it may be
obtained from any of the senses through which outside knowledge is acquired, including the senses of touch or pain.

Circumstantial evidence is a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown.
Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. Corroboration is normally supplied by one
or more expert witnesses who provide forensic evidence.

Nice follow-up, polomontana......yes, if used wisely and skillfully, direct and circumstantial evidence in COMBINATION can benefit the UFOlogy
community greatly. Although I did choose to avoid wikipedia's definition and sought a more thorough explanation of both....what you posted is to the
point. Good job.....please avoid wasting time on skeptics that choose to extend their arguments for no obvious reason. This will waste your time and
energy. Pick your spots, make your points, and when they counter with the same old lines/arguments, move on. Look for those with an open
mind...eventually you'll find that open-minded skeptics can help you and vice-versa. Believers do need open-minded skeptics and vice-versa to be
balanced in the approach to furthering the study of ufology. Also, close-minded believers should be avoided as well.....

I do like how speak of this as fact though without solid undeniable proof.

You appear to do the same with your side of the argument however the difference for me is I've seen with my own eyes so can talk about them, but you
have never seen so can sit back and say just about anything you want but can and will never disprove their existence.

Have you ever seen a psychiatrist. Not calling you crazy but it could be another option..maybe you are suffering from delusions or maybe not. If you
aren't then why you....what is it you can have that lets say someone who can actually be beneficial to them...like say politician, military person of
high rank. Thats why abductions make no sense...if you want to contact us than get someone who people will believe and leave them some evidence or if
you want to inter-breed with us than why not choose the best we have to offer instead of just anybody. Why risk polluting your species with just
anyone. Oh yeah because I don;t think like them...lol.

Have you ever seen a psychiatrist. Not calling you crazy but it could be another option..maybe you are suffering from delusions or maybe not. If you
aren't then why you....what is it you can have that lets say someone who can actually be beneficial to them...like say politician, military person of
high rank. Thats why abductions make no sense...if you want to contact us than get someone who people will believe and leave them some evidence or if
you want to inter-breed with us than why not choose the best we have to offer instead of just anybody. Why risk polluting your species with just
anyone. Oh yeah because I don;t think like them...lol.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by riggs2099]

[edit on 27-7-2008 by riggs2099]

Riggs,

In one breathe you try to apply human logic to extraterrestrial thought and then deny they exist in the next breathe.

How do you know these people are really Chinese and really from China?

It's what you have been taught right and yet you believe am I correct?

Can you prove to me China exists? I'll bet I could probably debunk most of the pictures you have as they could have been taken anywhere in the world.
Until you have actually physically set foot in China you can never know for yourself and even then there could still be an argument. History, the
media, books and people have been known to lie.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.